FRANCISCO L. DAYRIT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. NORBERTO L. DAYRIT AND FLORA REGNER-DAYRIT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

It appears that on January 27, 1951, a decision was rendered in Special
Proceeding No. 747-R of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, entitled “In the
Matter of the Adoption of the Minor, Lydia Duran—Norberto L. Dayrit and Flora
Regner-Dayrit, petitioners,” granting the latter’s application for the adoption
of Lydia Duran, a minor five years of age, whose mother, Lutgarda Duran, had
consented thereto. About a year later, or on January 3, 1952, Francisco L.
Dayrit filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision, upon the ground that
the same had been obtained through fraud and that said movant is the father of
Lydia Duran—whose true name is said to be Lydia Dayrit—and a brother of
petitioner Norberto L. Dayrit, who knew the relation between the movant and
Lydia Duran, and concealed this fact from the court. By an order dated on
February 4, 1952, the Court of First Instance of Cebu granted this motion, set
aside the aforementioned decision and directed a new trial. In an action for
certiorari and prohibition, instituted by Norberto L. Dayrit before this Court,
G. R. No. 1^5627, entitled “In re adoption of the minor Lydia Duran—Norberto L.
Dayrit et al. vs. Edmundo S. Piccio, et al.,” said order of February 4, 1952 was
annulled in a decision promulgated on February 27, 1953, the dispositive part of
which reads:

“Se declara nula y de ningun valor la orden revocatoria de 4 de febrero de
1952 y se hace definitiva la orden de interdicto prohibitorio preliminar
expedida por este Tribunal, con costas contra Francisco L.
Dayrit.”

Meanwhile, Francisco L. Dayrit had instituted civil case, G. R. No. L-6013,
entitled “Francisco and Lutgarda Duran vs. Norberto L. Dayrit and Flora
Regner-Dayrit,” for the purpose of obtaining the custody of Lydia Duran by writ
of habeas corpus, which was denied in a decision rendered on March 10,
1953. Thereafter, or on September 4, 1953, Francisco L. Dayrit instituted the
present case in the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his complaint,
plaintiff prayed:

1. “That the order of the Court granting the adoption of the minor, Lydia
Duran, whose true name is Lydia Dayrit, under Sp. Proc. No. 747-R of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu, 14th Judicial District, in favor of Norberto L.
Dayrit and Flora Regner-Dayrit be rendered null and void and without any force
or effect for having been obtained fraudulently.

2. “That patria postesdad over Lydia Dayrit be restored unto
plaintiff herein;

3. “That pending this proceeding, the minor Lydia Dayrit be placed in the
custody of the plaintiff or in some respectable institution run by Catholic nuns
in the City of Manila;

4. “That defendants jointly and severally be condemned to pay plaintiff
herein in the total sum of P150,000 by way of moral damages;

5. “That defendants be condemned to pay jointly and severally attorney’s fees
in the sum of P20,000;

6. “That defendants jointly and severally be condemned to pay the costs of
this suit.

That plaintiff herein be given and granted such other and further reliefs as
are by law and equity warranted,” (Record on Appeal, pp. 9-10.)

In due course the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Norberto L. Dayrit, filed a motion
to dismiss upon the ground that the action is barred by prior judgments, namely
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in Special Proceeding No.
747-R, and the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases G. R. Nos. L-5627 and
L-6013. By an order dated February 5, 1954, the Court of First Instance of
Manila granted said motion and dismissed the case, with costs against the
plaintiff. The case is now before us on appeal taken by the latter.

The only issue for determination is whether or not the present action is
barred by the aforementioned decisions of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
and of this Court. It is obvious, to our mind, that the answer must be in the
negative, for none of said decisions had passed upon the question whether or not
the decision in Special Proceeding No. 747-R had been secured through extrinsic
fraud. Indeed, although in its order dated February 4, 1952, the Court of First
Instance of Cebu found the herein appellees guilty of such fraud, said order was
annulled in case G. R. No. L-5627, upon the sole ground that said court had no
jurisdiction to issue it, the judgment rendered on January 27, 1951 having
already become final and executory. The existence of extrinsic fraud in
obtaining said judgment was not taken up in our decision, either in case G. R.
No. L-5627, or in case G. R. No. L-6013. The only question involved in the
latter case was whether or not appellees were entitled to the custody of Lydia
Duran. For obvious reasons, this was resolved in the affirmative, in view of the
decree of adoption in favor of said appellees, and would have to be so resolved
in the future, as long as said decree is not set aside or annulled upon the
ground of fraud, which is precisely the purpose of the present case.

In the case of Anacleto Uy Almeda, et al. vs. Adriano F. Cruz, (84
Phil., 636) we held:

“The lower court committed a technical error in dismissing the case on the
ground of res adjudicata,. The doctrine of res adjudicata is predicted
on a prior valid judgment. As the very purpose of the action is to annul that
judgment, the latter, its stands to reason, may not be invoked as a bar to the
new suit.”

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside, and let
the record of the case at bar be remanded to the lower court, for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with costs against
defendants-appellees. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.